Bicycle Advoctea working against themselves?

[Sir Ridesalot]

I've been reading a number of bicycling forums, bolgs and so on and have noticed something interesting. Many bicyclists SUPPORT being able to run red lghts and stop signs as well as not using either reflectors or lights at night because "statistics" don't support that many such bicyclists get hit or killed. These bicyclists also don't seem to be all that against riding the wrong direction on streets either. What gets me is that they wonder why so many motorists and pedestrians want bicyclists to be either licensed or off the roads entirely. Posting that it's okay to ride through red lights/stop signs or to ride without lights or reflectors at night and to ride in the wrong direction on streets is VERY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to advocating for bicycles on the roads. Talk about giving the other side ots of ammunition to use a gainst you! Makes me wonder why there is such strong denial that those behaviours exist and are at times quite frequent.

Cheers

[John B.]

One can only speculate. Perhaps the bulk of the approximately 700
people that die on bicycles annually in the U.S. are those who are
running red lights and stop signs, failing to use reflectors and
lights and driving the wrong way.

Perhaps what we perceive as danger, danger, is simply Darwin in
action?
--
cheers,

John B.

[Duane]

On 16/05/2016 11:46 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> I've been reading a number of bicycling forums, bolgs and so on and have noticed something interesting. Many bicyclists SUPPORT being able to run red lghts and stop signs as well as not using either reflectors or lights at night because "statistics" don't support that many such bicyclists get hit or killed. These bicyclists also don't seem to be all that against riding the wrong direction on streets either. What gets me is that they wonder why so many motorists and pedestrians want bicyclists to be either licensed or off the roads entirely. Posting that it's okay to ride through red lights/stop signs or to ride without lights or reflectors at night and to ride in the wrong direction on streets is VERY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE to advocating for bicycles on the roads. Talk about giving the other side ots of ammunition to use a gainst you! Makes me wonder why there is such strong denial that those behaviours exist and are at times quite frequent.
>
> Cheers
>

All of those things are illegal in Quebec. I don't see many people
advising to break those laws except maybe the stop sign law. We are
getting a safe passing distance (1 meter) law here and there's talk of
allowing cyclists to treat a stop as a yield as they do in France.

[sms]

That's true. It's really only the Stop signs that are an issue. The
Idaho Stop Law, at least the Stop sign part of it, makes a lot of sense.
But in most locales in my area the police already informally have
adopted the Idaho law; you can't fly through a stop sign at 20MPH, but
slowing to a few MPH, looking, and yielding, is not going to get you a
ticket.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Duane:

> We are
>getting a safe passing distance (1 meter) law here and there's talk of
>allowing cyclists to treat a stop as a yield as they do in France.

At least one state in the USA does that - but I cannot recall which -
but the common name for it is "Idaho Stop".
--
Pete Cresswell

[Duane]

Same thing here in Quebec though it's also sometime called an American stop.

[sms]

Vehicles have been doing the "California Stop" for a long time. I warn
my kids to not do it while driving. But it's hopeless to educate SwMBO
who has gotten a ticket for doing it but still does it.

The thing is, that even for cars, a rolling stop is not a big deal but
it's such an easy ticket for cops that they love giving them out. In San
Francisco, there are some places where a rolling stop for cars is the
rule rather than the exception, due to a steep hill, especially with a
manual transmission.

[jbeattie]

It's interesting riding with other cyclists and experience the continuum of compliance -- from the scrupulous to the scofflaws. I've been riding lately with a bunch of older racers, and stop signs are regarded as yield signs. I rode with my son and his cohorts in SLC, and they didn't so much as slow down for some stops. It's "what they do." I usually slow and always stop when there are cars, if only cars behind me. We have sting operations for cyclists who fail to stop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TikyIcoop60 This intersection got a sting, for obvious reasons.

-- Jay Beattie

[Frank Krygowski]

It's Idaho, Pete.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 5/17/2016 6:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:
>
>
> It's interesting riding with other cyclists and experience the continuum of compliance -- from the scrupulous to the scofflaws. I've been riding lately with a bunch of older racers, and stop signs are regarded as yield signs. I rode with my son and his cohorts in SLC, and they didn't so much as slow down for some stops. It's "what they do." I usually slow and always stop when there are cars, if only cars behind me. We have sting operations for cyclists who fail to stop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TikyIcoop60 This intersection got a sting, for obvious reasons.

I almost always make a show of acknowledging a stop sign, but it's
rarely a complete stop. I do slow way down, conspicuously look both
ways, and stand while pedaling away. But I seldom completely stop
unless I actually need to for real life traffic purposes. The only stop
signs I sometimes roll at speed are those put up in low traffic
residential streets, obviously to reduce car speeds. But those
generally don't meet legal warrants anyway.

I've done my near-stop directly in front of a police car, at a four-way
stop, and never heard a whisper about it.

The other day, at a fairly busy four-way stop, I did my usual trick,
which is waving through the guy to my right who had the right of way. I
find it reduces the "You go... no, you go" politeness wars, and gets
things moving a lot more quickly.

This guy was so amazed he shouted out the window "Are you sure??" before
waving thanks and proceeding.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tim McNamara]

On Tue, 17 May 2016 06:18:20 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

> That's true. It's really only the Stop signs that are an issue. The
> Idaho Stop Law, at least the Stop sign part of it, makes a lot of
> sense. But in most locales in my area the police already informally
> have adopted the Idaho law; you can't fly through a stop sign at
> 20MPH, but slowing to a few MPH, looking, and yielding, is not going
> to get you a ticket.

Which is how people in cars manage stop signs as well. No one comes to
a complete stop at a stop sign unless there's traffic that forces it
(and if they do, someone behind them honks the horn).

The traffic laws as written are very different from how all vehicles are
operated. The funny thing is the finger pointing- if the other person
behaves like you but is operating a different kind of vehicle, then they
are breaking the law and should be stopped. Ah, hypocrisy, thy name is
people...

[Duane]

You'd have an argument with my wife who just got through fighting a
ticket for not doing a complete stop at a stop sign. She won because
the judge gave her a break due to the ice on the road that wasn't
cleared by the city.

[sms]

Yes, on icy roads is when I will typically do a rolling stop. Did that a
lot this winter up in Oregon, along with most everyone else.

[Duane]

It's technically not an excuse here but the city did a poor job of
plowing this year so the judge wanted to make a point. Lucky for my
wife. But my point was that you can definitely get ticketed here for
rolling a stop in a car.

[sms]

In rural San Mateo County, which is a heavily used cycling area, the
county sheriff provides law enforcement for both many of the smaller
cities and for the unincorporated areas. The small towns, which contract
with the sheriff, have apparently told the deputies to target cyclists
that don't come to a complete stop at stop signs. So you have motor
vehicles cruising through the stop signs unmolested, but cyclists get
ticketed.

The famous "Portola Loop" has a right turn from Alpine Road to Portola
road. There's a stop sign there. It's routinely run by cyclists turning
right. It's a favorite place for the sheriff to write tickets for
cyclists.
<https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3718898,-122.2079417,3a,60y,267.98h,77.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSAkFkSVIrnAp2Fy8_F3_VA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656>

[jbeattie]

The problem is that you have to stop sometime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCoxOReXlHI

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 5/17/2016 3:01 PM, jbeattie wrote:

> We have sting operations for cyclists who fail to stop. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TikyIcoop60 This intersection got a sting, for obvious reasons.

Similar to the Portola loop sting operation. Yet in that video, even the
car did not come to a stop. And a cyclist yielded to the pedestrian
wanting to cross.

[Tim McNamara]

Another thing I have noticed about bike advocates, at least here in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul area. They push hard for bike lanes and want them
on what are really the worst routes for cycling: very high traffic
roads which are typically also bus routes. They consider getting an
inadequate bike lane on a bad road- which creates a miserable riding
experience- as a victory. Often there is a very nice alternative one or
two blocks away and they fight tooth and nail to prevent that from being
used. The most recent example is the proposed Cleveland Avenue route in
St. Paul MN; the street isn't even wide enough for long stretches to
have two full width motor vehicle lanes and two full width bike lanes,
even when car parking is banned. But 1/4 mile east is a very pleasant
street that goes through to all they places they wanted.

Apparently making bicyclists suffer to teach drivers a lesson is
progress. Or something.

[sms]

I was at a Planning Commission meeting for my city a week ago. A
developer was presenting their case for approval of a plan to demolish a
342 unit apartment complex and to replace it with a 942 unit apartment
complex. Since a major concern of the community about their project is
traffic impact, they must have mentioned bicycles 100 times in their
presentation.

They do not want to provide adequate parking for the apartments and they
claim that the residents will be commuting by bicycle (highly unlikely).
They are planning to put in a little plaza for cyclists, including
non-residents, with some bicycle repair stands and some air compressors
to encourage cycling, and a coffee and juice bar. They kept talking
about how cyclists would be stopping at the plaza to repair their
bicycles and to have a coffee or juice.

The apartment complex is on the one N-S route in my town that cyclists
avoid like the plague. It's got high-speed on and off-ramps to I-280,
that require lane veering in both the northbound and southbound
directions. Traffic on the road will be getting much worse as soon as
Apple opens their new campus. Steve Jobs tried to buy this apartment
complex, which occupies the southwest corner of the parcel, and demolish
it but the owner would not sell.
<https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3333004,-122.0136325,1010m/data=!3m1!1e3>

See the helmet-less cyclists on the right in
<http://www.hamptonscupertino.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/dog-park-people-at-table-reclaimed-h2o-bike-commuter-montage-1440x407.jpg>
and then see the statement "Stay safe and please remember to always wear
a helmet when riding a bike."

The developer's idea is that Apple employees will be anxious to rent
these apartments, which will probably rent for $4500 for a 2BR. But
Apple employees don't like living in Cupertino, they like living in
cities where the sidewalks aren't rolled up a 9:00 p.m., and Apple
provides free transportation from more desirable areas. If Apple
employees do end up renting there, they won't be cycling to work they'll
be walking.

[Joerg]

In Grants Pass (OR) they told me not to do that because of the
California plates on my car.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Joerg]

On 2016-05-19 12:09, sms wrote:
> On 5/19/2016 11:10 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Another thing I have noticed about bike advocates, at least here in the
>> Minneapolis-St. Paul area. They push hard for bike lanes and want them
>> on what are really the worst routes for cycling: very high traffic
>> roads which are typically also bus routes. They consider getting an
>> inadequate bike lane on a bad road- which creates a miserable riding
>> experience- as a victory. Often there is a very nice alternative one or
>> two blocks away and they fight tooth and nail to prevent that from being
>> used. The most recent example is the proposed Cleveland Avenue route in
>> St. Paul MN; the street isn't even wide enough for long stretches to
>> have two full width motor vehicle lanes and two full width bike lanes,
>> even when car parking is banned. But 1/4 mile east is a very pleasant
>> street that goes through to all they places they wanted.
>>
>> Apparently making bicyclists suffer to teach drivers a lesson is
>> progress. Or something.
>
> I was at a Planning Commission meeting for my city a week ago. A
> developer was presenting their case for approval of a plan to demolish a
> 342 unit apartment complex and to replace it with a 942 unit apartment
> complex. Since a major concern of the community about their project is
> traffic impact, they must have mentioned bicycles 100 times in their
> presentation.
>
> They do not want to provide adequate parking for the apartments and they
> claim that the residents will be commuting by bicycle (highly unlikely).

Even if there was a pristine and nearly complete bike path network like
we have in Folsom 5% would already be a lofty number. And only if it's
not raining. This ain't The Netherlands or Denmark.

> They are planning to put in a little plaza for cyclists, including
> non-residents, with some bicycle repair stands and some air compressors
> to encourage cycling, and a coffee and juice bar. They kept talking
> about how cyclists would be stopping at the plaza to repair their
> bicycles and to have a coffee or juice.

Put a brewpub there instead of some juice bar. That is going to work :-)

>
> The apartment complex is on the one N-S route in my town that cyclists
> avoid like the plague. It's got high-speed on and off-ramps to I-280,
> that require lane veering in both the northbound and southbound
> directions. Traffic on the road will be getting much worse as soon as
> Apple opens their new campus. Steve Jobs tried to buy this apartment
> complex, which occupies the southwest corner of the parcel, and demolish
> it but the owner would not sell.
> <https://www.google.com/maps/@37.3333004,-122.0136325,1010m/data=!3m1!1e3>
>

Now they want to cram 942 units in there? Highrises? Out here that would
be one or two horse ranches.

> See the helmet-less cyclists on the right in
> <http://www.hamptonscupertino.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/dog-park-people-at-table-reclaimed-h2o-bike-commuter-montage-1440x407.jpg>
> and then see the statement "Stay safe and please remember to always wear
> a helmet when riding a bike."
>
> The developer's idea is that Apple employees will be anxious to rent
> these apartments, which will probably rent for $4500 for a 2BR. But
> Apple employees don't like living in Cupertino, they like living in
> cities where the sidewalks aren't rolled up a 9:00 p.m., and Apple
> provides free transportation from more desirable areas. If Apple
> employees do end up renting there, they won't be cycling to work they'll
> be walking.

But they'll almost all have cars for longer trips and those must be
parked somewhere.